Patterson does the right thing

It's sad that Iowa beat us to this, but hopefully we'll be caught up soon.

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/97474/governor-announces-bill-to-legalize-gay-marriage/Default.aspx

A fair point, but at least it's a first step.

I still say the Supreme Court has to rule that Gay Marriage is a human right. To pass it as a state law, or state legislation, imo, still classifies gays and lesbians as second class citizens who happen to have the right to get married until said law or legislation is revoked. Any Esquires want to chime in? Am I off base?

Honestly, the state needs to get out of the marriage business.From a legal perspective, there should only be civil ceremonies, and there should be no distinction in state or federal law between gay and straight couples joined by such a civil ceremony (in terms of tax law, insurance, whatever- all references to "marriage" should be removed from the law). Then individual religions can have their own definitions of marriage without violating the 1st ammendment, but such a status should have no weight under the law.

great point and maybe the best way to move this forward, since religious heterosexists seem so attached to the term -- and their own personal definition of -- 'marriage.' also, unless it's federal, some of the most important 'rights' one gets with the marriage license are not bequeathed (e.g., immigration/citizenship status, social security benefits). patterson made, imo, a nice gesture as an unpopular politician with little to lose. especially given how cold albany is towards the lgbt community.

sorry about the misspellings! think i'd know better with paterson signing my paychecks :-)

the supreme court rarely weighs in on divisive issues like this until there's been lots of state-level legislation. (see loving v. virginia, which came AFTER most states had already overturned their anti-miscegenation laws.) i doubt the SC will agree to hear a case on this until state-level laws are similarly settled.