New York axes marriage-for-all

Good thing I'm living in the liberal haven of New York State... oh wait. Maybe we're not that far along after all: the court of appeals here (not surprisingly) reversed a Manhattan judge's decision that would have allowed gay folks to get married.

Some astute and dead-on commentary from Gawker this morning, though: "It's more the language that was used in upholding the status quo. No 'we're sympathetic but the court overstepped its bounds'; no 'it's fundamentally unfair but a matter that must be left to the legislature.' Oh, no. Instead it was grafs like:

The law assumes that a marriage will produce children and affords benefits based on that assumption. It sets up heterosexual marriage as the cultural, social and legal ideal in an effort to discourage unmarried childbearing. ...

Because of course gay marriage would be detrimental to 'the well-being of children and society.' Even here in good ol' blue-state New York."

And guess what? I'm taking this opportunity to talk about the framing of the issue. Much like the problem I had with the term "women bloggers," I have a problem with calling it "gay marriage" because it frames the issue in a way that it sounds like it's somehow special, different. (And we all know how the Right loves the special and different.)

People need to be given access to all their rights, and there's a whole section of society that's not afforded the basic civil right of being able to marry the person they love. This isn't about allowing special privileges, about straight marriage (which we never say) or gay marriage -- this is about marriage for everyone who wants it. What's so wrong with love, anyways?

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.