Episode Two
After I sent the 39 emails to New York State Senators who do not support the Marriage Equality Bill, the auto-replies started pouring in. Actually 13 of these senators (or one-third) had auto-replies set for their email accounts. Most read like this:
Dear Friend,
Thank you for your recent e-mail. I appreciate the time you have taken to correspond with me. Your comments and suggestions are very important to me and an integral part of the legislative process. As such, you can be assured that I will remain mindful of your thoughts and concerns.
With more people communicating with my office by e-mail, I now receive thousands of e-mails each week. I will make every effort to respond to your correspondence as soon as possible. If you have not already done so, please forward your name, address and phone number to my office.
Once again, thank you for contacting me with your views.
However, two senators, William T. Stachowsky and Andrew J. Lanza, responded with a substantive reply. While I am sure that the text is a standard response to inquiries like mine, I was impressed that each senator had a position prepared and was able to provide it to me within days of my email.
Senator Stachowsky represents the Buffalo area.
Dear Friend,
Thank you for your recent note outlining your views on same sex marriages in New York. The points raised in your letter are well taken, and I can certainly understand your strong feelings of this matter.
All over the nation major legislative battles have been waged over same sex marriage. In Spring, 1996, Congress passed the “Defense of Marriage Act” which provides that no state will be required to recognize same-sex marriages granted in another state. It also states that the federal government will not recognize such marriages. Traditionally, federal and state governments have recognized the validity of marriage licenses granted in any state. Although other states have tackled this issue by enforcing old statutes or enacting new ones that deal with same-sex marriages, New York has not enacted any law pertaining to this issues to date. In fact, there are many legislators who support legislation that would make marriage absolutely void if contracted by 2 persons of the same sex, regardless of whether it is recognized or solemnized in another jurisdiction.
Personally, I feel that New York should enact a statute permitting “civil unions” which I believe would address the concerns expressed by some New Yorkers, especially when it comes to partners making life altering decision, or becoming eligible for family benefits such as health or life insurance.
In closing, I hope I’ve adequately expressed my position on this issue. In the event you have any further comments or questions I would be happy to hear from you.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM T. STACHOWSKI
STATE SENATOR
58TH DISTRICT
Senator Lanza's reply was more succinct. He represents Staten Island.
To Whom it May Concern:
Thank you for your recent correspondence with my office regarding same sex marriage legislation. There has been no vote yet on this issue within the New York State Senate, as Senate Democrats have not brought it to the floor. I believe that no one should be treated unfairly, which is why I support civil unions as the preferred approach on this issue. I believe that we should legislatively secure equal benefits for same sex couples, without changing the definition of marriage. Accordingly, I do not support the legislation as it is currently proposed.
Once again, thank you for your recent correspondence with my office. Please, do not hesitate to contact my district office 718-984-4073 with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
ANDREW LANZA
State Senator
24th District
Their quick responses inspired me and I sent them both this reply:
Dear Senator,
I appreciate your considered response to my letter concerning the Marriage Equality Bill. While we are clearly in disagreement, I have an understanding of how you view this issue. Since you invite a response, I ask for a moment of your time to consider the following.
In lieu of marriage, you say you would support civil unions for same-sex couples. These would in theory provide the legal protections and privileges of marriage. This solution is one that satisfies the contractual necessities of marriage, but does not address the emotional necessities. The Marriage Equality Bill is as much about expressing love as it is about guaranteeing civil rights. Marriage is in many ways a public pronouncement of a couple's love and commitment. That marriage becomes an identity for the two, forever joined and facing the challenges of life together. That is, when the marriage works out. But all loving couples should have the ability to marry, because when it does work out the union makes our society stronger.
The emotional value of the word and concept of marriage cannot be underestimated. Imagine if we told parents who adopt a child that they have the same rights and privileges as parents and can determine the proper upbringing of their child, but they cannot call themselves mother and father. You get all the rights, but you don't get the name. You can enjoy a mutually enriching life with your child, but you can't be called Mom and Dad. Or Mom and Mom. When we think of the word marriage, we must ascribe to it the same emotional importance we give to matriarchal and paternal identities. From this perspective, I hope that you understand why restricting same-sex couples to civil unions is an unacceptable alternative.
Please share with me your thoughts and reaction, and I thank you for taking the time to respond.
(I took the photo above of Governor Paterson speaking at the Marriage Equality Rally, May 17, 2009.)
