NY Resident, February 21, 2005
Straight and Narrow, by Sam Weisberg
By many accounts, gay couples in New York City enjoy more
legal protections than they ever did before – but is it enough?
New York legislators say the answer is a definitive no, and
they’re rallying to make the issue a key one – and a troublesome one for
Mayor Michael Bloomberg – in a New York City election year.
“A lot of politicians are saying we should make sure every
single equal-protection law applies to same-sex couples, but they still
shouldn’t be allowed to marry,” State Senator Liz Krueger says. “What we have to realize is, changing all
laws that benefit married couples so that they protect gay couples would be a
very long, tedious process. But if it
were legal within the state for a same-sex pair to get married, no changes to
the existing laws regarding married people would be necessary; all wedded
homosexuals in the state would share the same right automatically.”
Bloomberg is in a bind because he’s appealing a February 4th decision by State court Judge Doris Long-Cohan that said the city violated
the rights of five same-sex couples when they couldn’t get city marriage
licenses. The Mayor, who has publicly
supported gay marriage, says he’s appealing because of what happened in San
Francisco in 2004 – the city issued thousands of marriage licenses to gay and
lesbian couples only to have them struck down by a state court later.
“The Mayor supports same-sex marriages, and he’s said he’d
go to Albany to help lead the fight to help change the law,” Bloomberg
spokesman Jordan Barowitz says.
But his critics won’t back down, pointing out that the
Mayor last year opposed the City Council’s decision to require contractors
doing work with the city to extend same benefits to same-sex couples as it
did to heterosexual married couples. After a legal battle, the decision eventually stood.
On the Federal level, US Representative Carolyn Maloney
wants to amend employee medical plans for gays and lesbians with live-in
partners. Earlier this month, she
proposed two new Federal bills regarding the Family and Medical Leave Act,
the statute that allows workers unpaid leave to care for a sick spouse or
child without losing their jobs. The
first bill would extend this protection to same-sex couples. The second bill would expand the law,
currently only applicable to companies with 50 or more employees, to include
companies with as few as 25.
“When Bloomberg backed down on the medical-benefits bill,
he claimed individual company policy changes would be too expensive to
enforce,” Maloney spokesman Brice Peyre says. “Much of New York City’s lesbian and gay population was up in
arms. They knew that in cities like San
Francisco, equal legislation for employee medical coverage had been in place
for years and cost very little. We
[want] to assure them that even if we can’t grant them marriage rights, we
are out there fighting for equal protection.”
But others think that’s not enough. Krueger calls Maloney’s plan a step in the
right direction but says that the only way to fully equate gay couples with
straight couples is to grant them the right through marriage.
“I think the main opposition comes from religious groups,”
Krueger says. “But I’m not asking for
two gay men to be wed at a church. It
should be a civil union, a government-recognized union. It’s a simple question of equality. Even if I were part of a religion deeply
opposed to same-sex marriage, as a legislator I would hold the exact same
position.”
Krueger remains optimistic about the future of same-sex
couples’ rights. “I believe this issue
is being resolved at a faster rate than I originally thought it would four
years ago, when I was running for office,” she says. “When I was growing up, it was unthinkable
that a mixed-race marriage would ever occur, and nowadays that’s widely
accepted. I certainly believe a
similar switch will happen in time with gay rights.”
RELATED PIECES:
A Court Rules, Then the Pols Weigh In
Pride Through Politics In '06, by Liz Krueger
Read Liz's Press Release on the Court's July '06 Ruling
Read Liz's Press Release on the Supreme Court's February '05 Ruling
