"Because the majority is in one place does not mean they're in the right place," he said. "We're in the position right now where we have to lead the country to the right place."Perhaps one of the most interesting moments of the debate was when Senator Diane Savino stood up and explained that heterosexual marriage was the real threat. Savino argued that shows like the "Bachelor" and "The Littlest Groom," not to mention the way heterosexuals actually act within and without of their marriages, are what threatens the sanctity of marriage. Not committed gay and lesbian couples. [youtubevid id="dCFFxidhcy0"] Governor Patterson tried to rally the troops by telling them
As disappointed as we are today, let's get up tomorrow and redouble our efforts...We are going to lay the foundation to make people feel comfortable to vote their conscience and not fear political backlash." "There's never a good time for civil rights. There's never, ever, ever, ever a good time for civil rights. I know. I get that," said Sen. Tom Duane, a Manhattan Democrat who was the chamber's first openly gay member. "But the paradox is, it's always the time to be on the right side of history."Although a majority of New Yorkers seem to support gay marriage, with a recent poll showing 51% in favor and 42% opposed, the legislature in New York has always been far more conservative than the population because of the extra weight given to upstate New York districts which are generally far to the right of the city. Same-sex marriage bill voted down in New York Senate - CNN.com. In California, where gay marriage was defeated in a state-wide referendum, with the help of tens of millions of dollars from the Mormon Church, support for gay marriage is taking an absurd turn. In order to counter the obvious injustice of privileging a minority of Americans (married heterosexuals), John Marcotte started a campaign to ban divorce. Meant to show the absurdity of the "save traditional marriage types," Marcotte is trying to gather enough signatures for a state-wide referendum on whether people who say "I do" should be allowed to say "I don't." After all, given that nearly half of marriages end in divorce (and have since no-fault divorce laws were passed nearly forty years ago), shouldn't people who want to save marriage also want to ban divorce? Marcotte's joke is being taken very seriously by some. Even the movement's tee shirts, which say "You said till death do us part and you're not dead yet" do not make the "joke" obvious for some supporters. In Vermont, during the marriage debates, I was part of a similar group called Heterosexuals for Mandatory Marriage (HMM) and we too advocated that anyone who wants any civil rights- from voting to taking out a student loan- should have to be married. We also supported special parking spaces for married people, right next to the Handicapped ones. Our "joke" was lost on many people, but Marcotte has been receiving donations from around the country from people who sincerely believe we should stop divorce to save marriage. Perhaps this is the way of future civil rights movements. Instead of getting civil rights, what we'll get are draconian marriage laws as the result of activists trying to point out the irony of saving marriage by denying marriage. As a former member of HMM, I have to say I support that. If divorce were illegal, no one would get married (okay a few people- but fewer than 5% of the population) and then marriage would disappear as a source of special privileges for the few at the cost of the many. And quite honestly, if married people really were forced to stay in it till death do them part, maybe I'd be willing to afford them the over 1000 extra rights and privileges they get now. Heck, I'll even throw in the parking spaces right next to the Handicapped ones.