New York state will now recognize gay marriages performed in states and/or countries where it is legal.
In a memo to state agencies, Gov. David Paterson followed up on the Spitzer/ Paterson campaign promise to join the fight for gay rights. The measure ensures that gay couples can qualify for joint health care plans, receive tax breaks by filing jointly and legally inherit property.
The statute could also potentially increase the rights of gay couples applying for adoption.
Members of the Republican majority were thrown by the memo. The state constitution makes very clear that New York state will only recognize marriages between a man and a woman. As it stands right now, Paterson's edict is only valid if the state Constitution is rewritten.
But the majority obviously isn't sensitive to the importance of equality. A “domestic partnership” is granted, making homosexuality permissible only as mediated by a superior governing body. It's condescending, judgmental, insensitive and ultimately unjust.
Ridiculous considering that gay marriage can only help the economy. Marriage licensing fees alone could generate millions for the state. And weddings certainly aren't cheap. Think about it; if you increase the number of weddings you increase profits for caterers, DJs, bands, florists, department stores, hotels and tourism in general. A much needed boost to an ailing economy.
From income taxes to inheritance taxes, the revenue generated by gay marriages would help recoup the deficit that New York is presently trying to earn through creative (borderline absurd) taxation. Not to mention that couples filing jointly are often pushed into a higher tax bracket. That could increase federal tax revenue by as much as a billion dollars each year; a win-win for everyone.
There is something to be said for the concern that gay unions may open the door for polygamy and bestiality and who knows what else. But if you keep a union as being between two people, I don't foresee a catastrophic title wave of problems or complications.
The fact is that objection to homosexuality is personal and often religious. But it isn't fair to disregard a large percentage of the population because their lifestyle doesn't gel with the religious values of the greater populace.
Frankly, I think Paterson is going about this very smartly by presenting a pretty fair compromise for both parties, for and against. Besides, people may change their tune about gay marriage when happy days are here again.
Estabrook's column appears Mondays and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com
The statute could also potentially increase the rights of gay couples applying for adoption.
Members of the Republican majority were thrown by the memo. The state constitution makes very clear that New York state will only recognize marriages between a man and a woman. As it stands right now, Paterson's edict is only valid if the state Constitution is rewritten.
But the majority obviously isn't sensitive to the importance of equality. A “domestic partnership” is granted, making homosexuality permissible only as mediated by a superior governing body. It's condescending, judgmental, insensitive and ultimately unjust.
Ridiculous considering that gay marriage can only help the economy. Marriage licensing fees alone could generate millions for the state. And weddings certainly aren't cheap. Think about it; if you increase the number of weddings you increase profits for caterers, DJs, bands, florists, department stores, hotels and tourism in general. A much needed boost to an ailing economy.
From income taxes to inheritance taxes, the revenue generated by gay marriages would help recoup the deficit that New York is presently trying to earn through creative (borderline absurd) taxation. Not to mention that couples filing jointly are often pushed into a higher tax bracket. That could increase federal tax revenue by as much as a billion dollars each year; a win-win for everyone.
There is something to be said for the concern that gay unions may open the door for polygamy and bestiality and who knows what else. But if you keep a union as being between two people, I don't foresee a catastrophic title wave of problems or complications.
The fact is that objection to homosexuality is personal and often religious. But it isn't fair to disregard a large percentage of the population because their lifestyle doesn't gel with the religious values of the greater populace.
Frankly, I think Paterson is going about this very smartly by presenting a pretty fair compromise for both parties, for and against. Besides, people may change their tune about gay marriage when happy days are here again.
Estabrook's column appears Mondays and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com
