As I listened to the debate and subsequent vote over the marriage equality act in the New York state Senate on Thursday, I couldn't help but beam with pride as the “yes” votes were cast.
I thought lifting the ban on gay marriage was the right thing for the state to do and I was overwhelmed with emotion that 33 of the state's 62 senators agreed with me.
Yes, I realize that there are many of you out there who disagree and are dismayed at our state Senate. I also realize that this column isn’t going to change your mind. And, to be honest, I’m not one to gloat. But I would like to revel a bit in all the new possibilities.
For one, think of the new revenue streams that same sex weddings can bring into the state. I didn't like this benefit as a reason to pass the bill, but I think it's a great side effect of its passage.
I know we tend to forget what a draw it is, but Niagara Falls – despite its drawbacks – is still a world-class destination for travelers both foreign and domestic. And while I'm pretty sure the ship sailed on it being the “Honeymoon Capital of the World” quite some time ago, there's nothing to say we can't be the gay honeymoon capital of the world.
Same sex couples can get hitched in the Falls, book receptions, motels and spend massive amounts of cash here … on this side of the border. I'm talking about private dollars being spent on private enterprises.
Sad as it may seem, I'm thinking a reality show has got to already be rolling around in someone's head. Maybe they follow a specific couple. Or maybe they follow around a member of the clergy who specializes in gay marriage. I haven't worked the details out in my head yet, but Hollywood's got to be thinking of it.
A reality show based in Niagara Falls would have to mean more tourists, and as such, more revenue for hoteliers, restaurateurs, and the like.
And, like it or not, more weddings will eventually mean more divorces. While I certainly can't get excited about this, I can only imagine that divorce lawyers are licking their chops at the new opportunities.
And not just lawyers, but marriage counselors, psychologists, etc. Yes, the downside of marriage is profitable for some.
Again, these side effect benefits aren't reason enough to support gay marriage, in my opinion, but they might help make the concept more bearable for those of you who opposed the idea.
As for me, I'm just happy that gay couples can join in on the party that the rest of us were invited to … just by having been born straight.
Strangely, Thursday night I sat at my desk, listening to the arguments being made and the votes being cast, overwhelmingly happy for thousands of people I'll never meet.
I hope that those of you who disagree with the concept can set aside that difference and be happy for them, too. And if not, try to figure out a way to make a buck on it.
After all, the only thing more American than equality is capitalism.
Showing posts with label state senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label state senate. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Government has no role in marriage
Some people have no respect for the sanctity of marriage. They view marriage as something to horde and keep for themselves. To them, it’s a political football to be kicked around Albany — or Washington, D.C.
There is no logical reason that I can understand why Republicans and Democrats should have the privilege of defining marriage, any more than they should be allowed to define the words “hope,” “love” or “commitment.”
If I believed for a second that politicians understood hope, love or commitment, I may be willing to consider their ability to define marriage. But I have little faith — another word I don’t want politicians defining — that elected officials understand any of these concepts.
There are several dictionary definitions of the word “marriage.” The one I tend to give the most credence to is: “The combination of two things into a new single entity.”
In the current debate over the word marriage, the question is whether it need be a union between a man and woman, or simply a union between two people. See, the state of New York decided a long time ago that marriage is specifically a union between a man and woman. And currently, there are 31 people in the state Senate who seem to want to keep it that way.
The latest census figures say that there are more than 19 million people living in New York. Scientific data says that one in 10 people is gay. Simple math, therefore, says that there are 1.9 million homosexuals in New York who can’t marry their person of choice because of 31 people who call themselves “public servants.”
I’ve always viewed marriage as a commitment between two people — and God. Marriage is a religious institution. Not a state institution. The only reason for the state’s involvement is to oversee the financial ramifications of the marriage, and as is far-too-often the case, the eventual divorce.
The state should be nothing more than a witness to a union created by the church. But as it is right now, there are 31 people objecting to what could potentially be 10 percent of marriages. Not just objecting, mind you, but vetoing them.
In my opinion, if a happy couple can find a church to marry them, the state should not stand in the way.
Many churches won’t want to marry same-sex couples. And I don’t have a problem with their hesitation or refusal to do so. They should not be forced to. They shouldn’t be barred from it, though, either.
Some would suggest that “marriage” be reserved for couples of a man and a woman, while allowing same-sex couples to have “civil unions.” These people are engaging in semantics, essentially creating the “straights-only” drinking fountains of the 21st century.
You may wholeheartedly disagree with me. That is certainly your right. I would suggest, however, that if you don’t want gay marriage, don’t marry someone of your own sex. And leave it at that.
You don’t get to tell other people what they can eat, drink or say in their own homes. We’ve finally reached the point where most of us have concluded that you can’t tell people what they can do in their own bedrooms, either. The next logical step is that we shouldn’t tell people who they can marry in their own churches.
Hope, love, commitment and faith are not things to be hoarded.
There is no logical reason that I can understand why Republicans and Democrats should have the privilege of defining marriage, any more than they should be allowed to define the words “hope,” “love” or “commitment.”
If I believed for a second that politicians understood hope, love or commitment, I may be willing to consider their ability to define marriage. But I have little faith — another word I don’t want politicians defining — that elected officials understand any of these concepts.
There are several dictionary definitions of the word “marriage.” The one I tend to give the most credence to is: “The combination of two things into a new single entity.”
In the current debate over the word marriage, the question is whether it need be a union between a man and woman, or simply a union between two people. See, the state of New York decided a long time ago that marriage is specifically a union between a man and woman. And currently, there are 31 people in the state Senate who seem to want to keep it that way.
The latest census figures say that there are more than 19 million people living in New York. Scientific data says that one in 10 people is gay. Simple math, therefore, says that there are 1.9 million homosexuals in New York who can’t marry their person of choice because of 31 people who call themselves “public servants.”
I’ve always viewed marriage as a commitment between two people — and God. Marriage is a religious institution. Not a state institution. The only reason for the state’s involvement is to oversee the financial ramifications of the marriage, and as is far-too-often the case, the eventual divorce.
The state should be nothing more than a witness to a union created by the church. But as it is right now, there are 31 people objecting to what could potentially be 10 percent of marriages. Not just objecting, mind you, but vetoing them.
In my opinion, if a happy couple can find a church to marry them, the state should not stand in the way.
Many churches won’t want to marry same-sex couples. And I don’t have a problem with their hesitation or refusal to do so. They should not be forced to. They shouldn’t be barred from it, though, either.
Some would suggest that “marriage” be reserved for couples of a man and a woman, while allowing same-sex couples to have “civil unions.” These people are engaging in semantics, essentially creating the “straights-only” drinking fountains of the 21st century.
You may wholeheartedly disagree with me. That is certainly your right. I would suggest, however, that if you don’t want gay marriage, don’t marry someone of your own sex. And leave it at that.
You don’t get to tell other people what they can eat, drink or say in their own homes. We’ve finally reached the point where most of us have concluded that you can’t tell people what they can do in their own bedrooms, either. The next logical step is that we shouldn’t tell people who they can marry in their own churches.
Hope, love, commitment and faith are not things to be hoarded.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Going. Going. Gaughan!
I have long supported the efforts of Kevin Gaughan, the political activist hell-bent on streamlining Western New York governments.
Gaughan can legitimately claim being at least partly responsible for the reduction of members in two county governments, and six towns, as well as the elimination of a village.
And now Gaughan has set his eyes on Albany, wishing to reduce the state Senate, followed by the Assembly. His plan is to make 62 senators into 50 and 150 assemblymen into 125.
He says the reduction in the Senate, alone, will save $12 million a year. In a time when we’re all looking for two nickels to rub together, $12 million is a whole lot of rubbing.
Gaughan even has the theoretical support of state Sen. George Maziarz, R-Newfane, who told him he has concerns, but generally is supportive of the plan.
I had my own concerns — particularly the diluting of the people’s voice in Albany with each state senator serving as many as 400,000 people under Gaughan’s plan. Right now, each senator has 322,000 constituents.
So Monday morning, I set out to put those concerns to rest with a phone call to Gaughan, himself.
“First of all, your question assumes that people have a voice in New York government,” he told me. “Virtually every New Yorker knows that the representative has no voice in government.”
“The fundamental purpose to reduce the number of politicians is to increase people’s voice,” Gaughan said, adding that when the real decisions get made, the state goes back to its tried-and-true method of “three men in a room.”
OK, he kind of got me there.
In addition, he said, bigger is not necessarily better. In lean times private companies roll back the number of employees they have to make ends meet. “Government should undergo the same change.”
Plus, Gaughan said, New York has one of the largest state governments in the union. And the cost of running that government is unmatched by even the largest of states.
“I think having two bodies with 212 members … I think there was a time when New York state could afford that,” he said. And that time is long gone.
“To ask people to have the highest cost for the New York State Legislature and have the least voice, calls for a change,” he said.
Gaughan continued, saying that real reform will require term limits, campaign finance reform and redistricting reform, which will prevent the legislators from gerrymandering their districts to ensure the 99 percent re-election rate they have enjoyed for years.
“Each of those reforms have been talked about and yearned for, for over 50 years,” he said. And while he certainly supports those three measures, his baby has been government reduction, which he says is equally important, but still just a part of the solution.
“To solve this problem, nothing's going to work ... but everything might,” he said.
Kevin and I were on the phone no more than five minutes. At the end of that five minutes, I agreed wholeheartedly. And I wish him the best.
Gaughan can legitimately claim being at least partly responsible for the reduction of members in two county governments, and six towns, as well as the elimination of a village.
And now Gaughan has set his eyes on Albany, wishing to reduce the state Senate, followed by the Assembly. His plan is to make 62 senators into 50 and 150 assemblymen into 125.
He says the reduction in the Senate, alone, will save $12 million a year. In a time when we’re all looking for two nickels to rub together, $12 million is a whole lot of rubbing.
Gaughan even has the theoretical support of state Sen. George Maziarz, R-Newfane, who told him he has concerns, but generally is supportive of the plan.
I had my own concerns — particularly the diluting of the people’s voice in Albany with each state senator serving as many as 400,000 people under Gaughan’s plan. Right now, each senator has 322,000 constituents.
So Monday morning, I set out to put those concerns to rest with a phone call to Gaughan, himself.
“First of all, your question assumes that people have a voice in New York government,” he told me. “Virtually every New Yorker knows that the representative has no voice in government.”
“The fundamental purpose to reduce the number of politicians is to increase people’s voice,” Gaughan said, adding that when the real decisions get made, the state goes back to its tried-and-true method of “three men in a room.”
OK, he kind of got me there.
In addition, he said, bigger is not necessarily better. In lean times private companies roll back the number of employees they have to make ends meet. “Government should undergo the same change.”
Plus, Gaughan said, New York has one of the largest state governments in the union. And the cost of running that government is unmatched by even the largest of states.
“I think having two bodies with 212 members … I think there was a time when New York state could afford that,” he said. And that time is long gone.
“To ask people to have the highest cost for the New York State Legislature and have the least voice, calls for a change,” he said.
Gaughan continued, saying that real reform will require term limits, campaign finance reform and redistricting reform, which will prevent the legislators from gerrymandering their districts to ensure the 99 percent re-election rate they have enjoyed for years.
“Each of those reforms have been talked about and yearned for, for over 50 years,” he said. And while he certainly supports those three measures, his baby has been government reduction, which he says is equally important, but still just a part of the solution.
“To solve this problem, nothing's going to work ... but everything might,” he said.
Kevin and I were on the phone no more than five minutes. At the end of that five minutes, I agreed wholeheartedly. And I wish him the best.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
When the majority is wrong ...
It would seem to me that if something’s right, it’s always right. Doesn’t matter what day it is or what year it is.
Slavery was wrong. It was always wrong. It was just as wrong in 1801 as it was in 1865 … as it is today. Slavery didn’t become wrong. We just eventually figured it out.
Just a few short decades ago, there remained laws in many states that prohibited inter-racial marriage. Those laws were wrong. Wrong now. Wrong then. We eventually figured it out.
And in 2009, gay marriage is illegal throughout the majority of our nation, including New York state, allegedly one of the most liberal states in the union.
And, frankly, that’s wrong. And our state senate had an opportunity last week to show the world they had figured that out. But instead they chickened out, voting 38-24 in opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage.
Every member of the Republican party voted against it. And every member of the Western New York contingent voted against it, save for Antoine Thompson.
I can’t recall ever being proud of Antoine Thompson before. I was last week.
Opponents will say that marriage is between a man and a woman … as God intended. I say if this is a religious issue, the state should have nothing to do with it. Let the churches decide if they wish to perform same-sex nuptials. Neither force them to, nor prohibit them from. Kind of … oh, what do they call that? Separation of church and state.
Opponents also say that same-sex marriage destroys the “sanctity” of marriage. With a greater than 50 percent divorce rate among heterosexuals, I think the “sanctity” of marriage can be questioned without the help of the gay community.
Opponents will say that if we allow homosexuals to marry, the next step will be to allow for polygamy … or for people to marry their pets. Probably exactly the same logic employed when inter-racial marriage was a hot topic. ‘Cause obviously if a black man wants to marry a white woman, he’d be equally inclined to marry a Shetland pony.
Opponents say that the majority of people don’t care about gay marriage. Never mind the fact that the reason we’re a republic instead of a democracy is to allow cooler, smarter heads to prevail and not allow the majority to trample the rights of the minority.
Most data suggests that approximately 10 percent of the population is gay. So the other 90 percent can pretend they don’t exist? I’ve also read that 10 percent of the world’s population lives with some sort of disability. Can we ignore them, too? Only 6 percent of the U.S. population — including yours truly — has red hair. Should I be shunned or ignored?
If you’re on a deserted island with nine other people and they decide that you would make a good dinner, that doesn’t make it right.
To sum it up, each and every one of us is in the minority on occasion. That doesn’t make us wrong. And it doesn’t mean our voice should be silenced.
If our good state senators oppose gay marriage for themselves, so be it. But to prevent 10 percent of the state’s population from being able to marry the one they love due to their own homophobia, lack of understanding, lack of compassion or simply kowtowing to the “majority” is just wrong.
If they were capable of being ashamed, I’d say shame on them. But we all know they’re not.
Slavery was wrong. It was always wrong. It was just as wrong in 1801 as it was in 1865 … as it is today. Slavery didn’t become wrong. We just eventually figured it out.
Just a few short decades ago, there remained laws in many states that prohibited inter-racial marriage. Those laws were wrong. Wrong now. Wrong then. We eventually figured it out.
And in 2009, gay marriage is illegal throughout the majority of our nation, including New York state, allegedly one of the most liberal states in the union.
And, frankly, that’s wrong. And our state senate had an opportunity last week to show the world they had figured that out. But instead they chickened out, voting 38-24 in opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage.
Every member of the Republican party voted against it. And every member of the Western New York contingent voted against it, save for Antoine Thompson.
I can’t recall ever being proud of Antoine Thompson before. I was last week.
Opponents will say that marriage is between a man and a woman … as God intended. I say if this is a religious issue, the state should have nothing to do with it. Let the churches decide if they wish to perform same-sex nuptials. Neither force them to, nor prohibit them from. Kind of … oh, what do they call that? Separation of church and state.
Opponents also say that same-sex marriage destroys the “sanctity” of marriage. With a greater than 50 percent divorce rate among heterosexuals, I think the “sanctity” of marriage can be questioned without the help of the gay community.
Opponents will say that if we allow homosexuals to marry, the next step will be to allow for polygamy … or for people to marry their pets. Probably exactly the same logic employed when inter-racial marriage was a hot topic. ‘Cause obviously if a black man wants to marry a white woman, he’d be equally inclined to marry a Shetland pony.
Opponents say that the majority of people don’t care about gay marriage. Never mind the fact that the reason we’re a republic instead of a democracy is to allow cooler, smarter heads to prevail and not allow the majority to trample the rights of the minority.
Most data suggests that approximately 10 percent of the population is gay. So the other 90 percent can pretend they don’t exist? I’ve also read that 10 percent of the world’s population lives with some sort of disability. Can we ignore them, too? Only 6 percent of the U.S. population — including yours truly — has red hair. Should I be shunned or ignored?
If you’re on a deserted island with nine other people and they decide that you would make a good dinner, that doesn’t make it right.
To sum it up, each and every one of us is in the minority on occasion. That doesn’t make us wrong. And it doesn’t mean our voice should be silenced.
If our good state senators oppose gay marriage for themselves, so be it. But to prevent 10 percent of the state’s population from being able to marry the one they love due to their own homophobia, lack of understanding, lack of compassion or simply kowtowing to the “majority” is just wrong.
If they were capable of being ashamed, I’d say shame on them. But we all know they’re not.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Money problems? Cap your own spending!
As I write this, the state Assembly and Senate have been called back to Albany for a special session to try to trim $1 Billion from the state budget ... in an effort to bring our budget deficit down to $5 Billion.
Make sure you read that right. They're trying to bring our deficit down to $5 Billion ... not the budget itself. The budget itself will still be in the $120 Billion area.
And senators and assemblymen from Nassau to Niagara have been sending mailers to their constituents telling them how much they care about their pocket books. So much that they're proposing a tax cap. No, not on their own spending. They want to cap what your local school board spends.
So a group of politicians who are writing in red ink want to dictate what a duly elected school board they have no control over can spend. And they think they're doing you some favor.
No doubt, school districts spend too much money, hire too many people, and create too many new programs. But that's not for my state senator or assemblyman to decide. They've got their own budget snafus to worry about.
State government has a way of creating problems, then asking other people to fix them.
They did this with health care facilitiess, doling out handfuls of cash to every hospital in their district, then complaining that the state was spending too much on hospitals. So they created a committee (the Berger Commission) to then dictate to these privately-run hospitals whether they should remain as-is, close, or merge with a competing privately-run hospital. The simple truth is had they not given money to the hospitals in the first place, the market would have dictated which hospitals would remain open.
Now they're doing it with schools, passing rules and requirements for school aptitude, testing, building requirements, special education, etc. But at the same time, they're complaining that those schools spend too much money. Is there any possibility that the reason those schools spend soo much money is because the state GIVES them money ... with strings attached?
I've been to enough school board meeting to know that the answer is 'yes.' School districts apply for grants or are simply offered cash from Albany, but have to spend "X" amount of local dollars to get that money. And then the school board tells the local taxpayers, "We're only paying 'X.' Albany is paying the rest."
If Albany would stay out of everyone else's business and concentrate on their own problems (I remind you again, we're $6 Billion in the whole), maybe they could actually accomplish something.
Taxpayers, if you want to curtail spending at your school district, run for school board and do it yourself. If you want your state senator or assemblyman to curtail spending at your local school district, you've been duped into believing a) that (s)he cares ... b) that (s)he wasn't the problem in the first place and c) that the state doesn't have it's own problems to worry about.
If they're so good at handling money, how'd they get a $6 billion budget deficit in the first place?
Make sure you read that right. They're trying to bring our deficit down to $5 Billion ... not the budget itself. The budget itself will still be in the $120 Billion area.
And senators and assemblymen from Nassau to Niagara have been sending mailers to their constituents telling them how much they care about their pocket books. So much that they're proposing a tax cap. No, not on their own spending. They want to cap what your local school board spends.
So a group of politicians who are writing in red ink want to dictate what a duly elected school board they have no control over can spend. And they think they're doing you some favor.
No doubt, school districts spend too much money, hire too many people, and create too many new programs. But that's not for my state senator or assemblyman to decide. They've got their own budget snafus to worry about.
State government has a way of creating problems, then asking other people to fix them.
They did this with health care facilitiess, doling out handfuls of cash to every hospital in their district, then complaining that the state was spending too much on hospitals. So they created a committee (the Berger Commission) to then dictate to these privately-run hospitals whether they should remain as-is, close, or merge with a competing privately-run hospital. The simple truth is had they not given money to the hospitals in the first place, the market would have dictated which hospitals would remain open.
Now they're doing it with schools, passing rules and requirements for school aptitude, testing, building requirements, special education, etc. But at the same time, they're complaining that those schools spend too much money. Is there any possibility that the reason those schools spend soo much money is because the state GIVES them money ... with strings attached?
I've been to enough school board meeting to know that the answer is 'yes.' School districts apply for grants or are simply offered cash from Albany, but have to spend "X" amount of local dollars to get that money. And then the school board tells the local taxpayers, "We're only paying 'X.' Albany is paying the rest."
If Albany would stay out of everyone else's business and concentrate on their own problems (I remind you again, we're $6 Billion in the whole), maybe they could actually accomplish something.
Taxpayers, if you want to curtail spending at your school district, run for school board and do it yourself. If you want your state senator or assemblyman to curtail spending at your local school district, you've been duped into believing a) that (s)he cares ... b) that (s)he wasn't the problem in the first place and c) that the state doesn't have it's own problems to worry about.
If they're so good at handling money, how'd they get a $6 billion budget deficit in the first place?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)