I first posted this on December 8th. I walked into Gillibrand's office this morning, and they confirmed her stance on gay civil unions, not gay marriage (and they re-iterated how EVERYONE should have civil unions, and leave marriage for religion).
January 23, 2009
Ok, another true story...
I logged onto Facebook today and it seems that one of my facebook friends wants Carolyn Maloney to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat.
Then, someone commented, what about Kirsten Gillibrand?
The response was, "NO! Gillibrand doesn't support gay and lesbian marriage equality! Maloney does."
Trixie Starr did some investigative reporting today (I'm not going to let my sister Brenda get all the glory!). The sign on Gillibrand's office door on Warren Street says "Open, please come in," so, I did.
Look at that! We have easy access to local government - democracies are amazing!!
Within two minutes, I received Gillibrand's position on gay and lesbian marriage. (It would have been faster if the printer wasn't finicky...)
Here's an excerpt:
"I believe we should have a Federal law that protects all civil unions across America to ensure that gay couples have the right to visit a loved one in the hospital and be eligible for other entitled rights and benefits of committed partners.
The discussion of using the term marriage is more complicated because for many Americans it is a religious right defined as a covenant between a man, a woman and God. Since the Federal government should have no role in dictating religious affairs, I believe from a Federal and civil perspective, "civil union" should be used as the government's definition for all such relationships, including marriage."
The letter then goes on to show her support of anti-discrimination and hate crimes legislation. It's all good.
Carolyn Maloney, on the other hand, supports full marriage equality, and you can read about it here. Just click the link.
Since Prop 8 in California, this is a bigger issue, and we have to make sure that our representatives are on the right side.
Now....for the record, I actually agree more with Gillibrand.
I believe that the government should ONLY recognize civil unions - FOR EVERYONE! Straight, gay, and whatever. Let religion cover marriage and let the government cover civil unions.
But...we don't live in France. And it's going to be a colder day (even colder than today) in hell before heterosexuals agree to relinquish the term "marriage" and go with with "civil unions".
It's a nice idea IN THEORY, but it's never going to happen.
My opinion is that Gillibrand's stance placates the people who don't want to hear the term "gay marriage", and it kinda placates gay people by saying everyone should be civil unioned. It's nice, but...
At this time, we need a more powerful voice, especially after California.
Plus, the term, "gay marriage" - just say it. Big deal.
Gay Marriage. Gay Marriage. Gay Marriage.
Canada, Massachusetts, Connecticut, they have gay marriages, and their societies haven't fallen apart.
I visited my family on Thanksgiving, in Hartford.
My five-year-old niece was playing the game of 'Life' with her friends. My brother turns to me, and with a shrug and a smile says, "Um, it looks like your niece in this game wants to get 'married' to a girl."
I looked at him and said, "Well, it's Connecticut, she can!"
And that's REALLY what it's all about.
My niece will know a world where gay people can get married and we have an African-American president.