[1] It looks now as if New York state will be the next battleground over legalizing same-sex marriage through legislative action rather than courts. It may be just as well. There have been a stream of court decisions beginning with Hawaii years ago and as recently as [2] Iowa’s Supreme Court earlier this month, where Justices declared that, when it comes to standards of justice under the constitution, two persons of the same gender should not be denied the right to marry. Or more accurately, the state has no compelling reason to deny that right.

We all know the ensuing history in which state after state then decided to ink prejudice into their constitutions, and make bigotry the compelling reason, thus closing “loopholes” which “activist judges” had found to legalize same-sex marriage.

[3]

New York’s Governor David Paterson seems to be reflecting the will of the citizens of the state in pressing to introduce legislation to legalize “gay marriage,” announced April 16.

According to a NewsDay.com [4] story this evening,

Fifty-three percent [53%] of voters surveyed by the Siena Research Institute said the Senate should pass Paterson’s bill. The Senate has been the stumbling block; the Assembly passed a similar measure in 2007.

Thirty-nine percent [39%] were opposed to same-sex marriage, including a majority of Republicans, men, older voters, blacks and Protestants. Eight percent [8%] didn’t express an opinion.

It looks as if the immediate disagreement is only one of strategy, between Paterson and Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, who doesn’t want a bill used as a trial balloon. He argues that the votes need to be put together outside of the Senate before the legislation is proposed.

I know from experience that floating new or controversial ideas without doing the homework is dangerous. A negative vote, even as a “straw vote” sets a bad precedent. But how much “homework” do we need? Paterson says he’s not doing this in response to polls, and apparently Smith is not resisting it in principle. From the [5] same NewsDay.com story:

Smith spokesman Austin Shafran said, “these new poll numbers further validate our support for marriage equality legislation. Senator Smith is fully committed to continuing the process of securing the 32 votes necessary for passage and ensuring that all New Yorkers can enjoy the fundamental right of marriage equality.”

So where is Rudy Giuliani coming from with his civil unions, no gay marriage line? [6] Vermont is dumping civil unions when their new gay marriage law takes effect. Is he just marking his conservative territory for the next Governor’s race? Or is he just making a fool of himself.

After one of his divorces (Giuliani has been married three times), Rudy actually lived with a couple of gay friends of his —a couple—for six months in 2001. I remember reading a wonderful feature story on this in the Los Angeles Times several years back, when Giuliani was still sort of a hero after the September 11 tragedy.

[7]

Tonight on MSNBC, that same gay couple have stated that Rudy Giuliani, while still Mayor, had told them that if gay marriage ever became legal he would do their wedding. The rest and the friendship, I guess, must be history. According to a [8] Post story tonight, Mark and Howard are going to Connecticut next month to get marriage—without quisling Rudy.

But here’s the curiosity, as quoted in the Post: 

They see no contradiction in the ex-mayor’s opposition to gay marriage and the fact he roomed with them for six months in 2001.”Rudy doesn’t discriminate. I should know. I lived with him for six months,” Koeppel, 68, a car dealer, said yesterday outside his West Side apartment. 

Koeppel, a Republican, said he believes that Giuliani’s opposition to gay marriage stems from his religious and political beliefs, not his personal ones. [emphasis added]

Hypocrisy and integrity are hard enough to measure in a person.  If I don’t personally live up to the values I espouse, my integrity is toast and I am rightly seen by others as a hypocrite.  But Rudy, which set of values are you using at any one moment? You have personal values that prompt you to like and support your gay friends, but those values can be shelved by the demands of running for office as a Republican? Isn’t that political opportunism? If you have values, shouldn’t you have one set of values that informs your personal life, your political positions and your religious beliefs?And excuse me for asking, Rudy, but if you are a “traditional Catholic,” did you convert to those values after getting married the first time or the second time or the third time? [9] Pam Spaulding says it square and fair. She calls him “serial adulterer Rudy Giuliani.”My personal guess is that, in contemporary America, in the scissors/paper/rock game of values, one’s political positions always trump personal and religious views. Giuliani is apparently hoping for a backlash against bleeding-heart Paterson. Says Spaulding, “The former mayor, in an extended interview with The Post, also predicted that Gov. Paterson’s high-profile effort to legalize gay marriage would anger many New Yorkers and spark a revolt that could help sweep Republicans into office in 2010.”

And my prediction is that with four, or maybe five, or even six, states where gay or lesbian couples can get married by November 2010, it will be just plain too late to anger voters over this issue. But we have our own hands full in California, right up to November 2010, so we’ll just have to watch New York from afar.

— Dan Hooper, Los Angeles