With a triumphant shout from the gallery in the New York state senate Friday night, and the signing of the bill by Governor Cuomo on Saturday morning, New York state did something that only five other states and the District of Columbia have done so far - legalize same-sex civil marriage.
Note the use of the word "civil" in our comment. It's not a mistake or a typo. In fact, it's likely one of the most important words missing from the debate on same-sex marriage in the United States.
There has nearly always has been a separation between religious laws and the secular laws of America and most of its states. There have been those individuals, from time to time who have used the power of the government to inflict their religious codes on others. Over time, however, American law has always swung back (so far) to re-establish the important division between the two.
On the subject of marriage, there is a vast difference between "civil marriage" and " religious marriage." Because of that separation, the State has no ability to force religious institutions to acknowledge the actions of other religions - or even sub-factions of their own religion. This was a fact specifically acknowledged in the New York law.
The government DOES have the ability to regulate "civil marriage", however, as it's a specifically defined category of legal contract. Every type of contract has specific rules that govern its enforcement, from bilateral real estate contracts, to unilateral contracts of action; from inter-corporate contracts to that special kind of contract between two individuals that covers many different laws, levels, and specifications with one word: the marriage contract.
Civil marriage contracts are mostly agreements that cover personal property rights - things like death benefits, tax relief, and the rights to make medical decisions for one's partner. It's a very specific class of contract - and there is no separate or similar kind of contract that bestows the holder with the same rights anywhere in the U.S. or any of its states or territories.
Even in states where "civil unions" are allowed between same-sex couples, the rights of those individuals are not the same as those relationships acknowledged with a legal label of "marriage" by the state. There are over a thousand benefits on both the federal and state level that only married couples enjoy, while those under civil unions receive approximately about 300 similar benefits. Such stark differences further drive home the fact that separate is not equal.
If anyone has a problem with same-sex couples using the word "marriage" to define their legal status, we would be completely fine if that legal label was disallowed for gay couples - so long as it was also disallowed for straight couples, and a new label given that would apply to all couples, across the board.
Until then, bigots and ignorant folk are simply going to have to learn to hear the silent "civil" when gay couples speak of their marriages to each other.
For our part, we're very glad for our friends in New York as well as for Americans around the country who will soon be able to go to New York and enter into fully legal civil marriage contracts. [New York has NO residency requirement for marriage.]
Passing this law wasn't merely an honorable action for the New York state government. Economists also estimate that in the next three years, the boom in same-sex marriages in the Empire State will bring more than a quarter of a billion dollars in new revenue to their state. So this law not only helps America be more just - it may rapidly help America, and New York specifically, to generate more tax revenue AND more jobs.
More jobs and new sources of revenue for the government, in a time when America needs both so desperately, are things we think even the most hate-filled homophobes should eventually cheer for.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
Friday Funday: The Way Out
Normally on Friday, we try to keep the mood lighter - and that is our intention, though it may not seem like it as we we begin today.
But first we have to report another vicious blow to America, with the incredibly stupid decision by Gannett Newspapers to put at least 700 more Americans onto the unemployment rolls.
We could rail against the insanity of such a decision - and internally, we are doing just that.
But it's Friday, so we're not going to dwell on the decisions of those who are incapable of seeing beyond the quarterly earnings statement. In time, the market will crush them into dust for their lack of vision - something successful investors like Warren Buffett continue to remind others about.
What we wish to point out to our former print colleagues in the media is something our web guru has been preaching to newspapers and radio stations and other "old school" media for years, now...
The idea that newspapers are dead is bull.
Old newspapers never die. They just get digitized - like every other type of media.
The problem that so many inside and outside the media field continue to have is that they confuse the medium with the message, just as Marshall McCluhan pointed out nearly fifty years ago.
The fact is, even though we have a huge number of new ways to consume media - Kindles, iPads, cell phones, and more - the MEDIA that we're taking in is the same as it was before. Someone has to draw the cartoons, someone has to write the words, and someone needs to edit the content and make sure things aren't misspelled or misinterpreted (Hear, us, bloggers?). If it's pictures, someone has to shoot the images. Of course, someone has to edit, lay out, and publish all of this content, as well.
Here's what the "newspaper" giants like Gannett won't tell you - they're really doing quite well financially, thanks to all their other divisions. Divisions which almost always crib their content from the original content created for "print products." Without the "print" creators, their other divisions will crumble.
Think about Hollywood movie blockbusters right now - where would they be without comic book writers and artists?
What's more, media consumption is on the increase worldwide. In America, we're taking in nearly 35% more media than we did just a few years ago. By the way, that increase came during the recession we're all still suffering through.
It's not that people aren't reading the newspaper any more. They are. You're reading a version of a newspaper right now. It's just one made up of pixels and glass, instead of ink and pulp.
So if you're one of our media colleagues suddenly looking for work again, take heart - your creative talents are still needed, and will continue to be needed in the future.
People will always have a need for someone creative to write, draw, photgraph, and edit the things they all enjoy reading.
But first we have to report another vicious blow to America, with the incredibly stupid decision by Gannett Newspapers to put at least 700 more Americans onto the unemployment rolls.
We could rail against the insanity of such a decision - and internally, we are doing just that.
But it's Friday, so we're not going to dwell on the decisions of those who are incapable of seeing beyond the quarterly earnings statement. In time, the market will crush them into dust for their lack of vision - something successful investors like Warren Buffett continue to remind others about.
What we wish to point out to our former print colleagues in the media is something our web guru has been preaching to newspapers and radio stations and other "old school" media for years, now...
The idea that newspapers are dead is bull.
Old newspapers never die. They just get digitized - like every other type of media.
The problem that so many inside and outside the media field continue to have is that they confuse the medium with the message, just as Marshall McCluhan pointed out nearly fifty years ago.
The fact is, even though we have a huge number of new ways to consume media - Kindles, iPads, cell phones, and more - the MEDIA that we're taking in is the same as it was before. Someone has to draw the cartoons, someone has to write the words, and someone needs to edit the content and make sure things aren't misspelled or misinterpreted (Hear, us, bloggers?). If it's pictures, someone has to shoot the images. Of course, someone has to edit, lay out, and publish all of this content, as well.
Here's what the "newspaper" giants like Gannett won't tell you - they're really doing quite well financially, thanks to all their other divisions. Divisions which almost always crib their content from the original content created for "print products." Without the "print" creators, their other divisions will crumble.
Think about Hollywood movie blockbusters right now - where would they be without comic book writers and artists?
What's more, media consumption is on the increase worldwide. In America, we're taking in nearly 35% more media than we did just a few years ago. By the way, that increase came during the recession we're all still suffering through.
It's not that people aren't reading the newspaper any more. They are. You're reading a version of a newspaper right now. It's just one made up of pixels and glass, instead of ink and pulp.
So if you're one of our media colleagues suddenly looking for work again, take heart - your creative talents are still needed, and will continue to be needed in the future.
People will always have a need for someone creative to write, draw, photgraph, and edit the things they all enjoy reading.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
No Surprises
We watched the President's announcement of America's withdrawal from Afghanistan last night - and if you haven't seen it yet, we suggest you put aside about fifteen minutes and watch it. At the very least, read the transcript.
Frankly, there wasn't anything that surprised us about the speech.
It's not that we're jaded. We know the stereotype of people who work in media and communications - and while that cliché may have some basis in reality, it didn't color our opinion of the President's address - or the reactions of our colleagues in the media that we observed last night.
First, to the speech.
Several media organizations had already leaked earlier this week that President Obama would be calling for 10,000 troops to come home by the end of this year. Others leaked that Obama would call at least 30,000 troops back in the next fifteen months. Neither piece of news shocked us when the President confirmed them both.
We weren't even surprised that the President made his announcement this month. Eighteen months ago, at West Point, the President told the country then that he was sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in order to actually try and complete the mission initially assigned to those troops a decade ago. The initial mission was to subdue the Taliban, help bring back a secular government, and kill Osama Bin Laden. Eighteen months later, all three goals have been accomplished - and true to his word, President Obama is now beginning to bring the troops home.
Certainly, there were other factors in the President's decision, the cost of the wars being one of the largest. Overall though, this President has - more often than not - completed the goals he's set for himself, and worked to fulfill his promises. One look at Politifact's "Obmaeter" confirms that he's only broken his promises on 42 of 508 promises made before he took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Sadly, we remain unsurprised at how the partisans on both ends of the simplified political spectrum attacked the President after his speech.
On the left, the anti-war liberals immediately jumped on the President as not moving fast enough, and harped on the fact there will still be more troops in Afghanistan than there were when he was inaugurated. Of course, they'll conveniently ignore the fact that his predecessor never even sent the recommended number of troops to either Afghanistan or Iraq in the first place.
On the right, the members of the 101st Kowardly Keyboard Kommandos' Chickenhawk Division immediately jumped to the idea that ANY significant troop reduction is a choice between a safe America and an unsafe America. As we've noted before, we'll never know if they'd feel the same way if they'd been the ones serving four or five tours of duty in war zones over the last decade, instead of living off the largess of their parents and others.
We're not even surprised at the general lack of reaction from Afghans and Pakistanis. Regardless of when we leave, the Afghans will likely revert back to their age-old habits of tribal squabbles and corruption. And Pakistanis still aren't sure killing Bin Laden was a good idea.
Everyone knows where they stand on this issue - and it's no different than it was before the President's address last night. The only thing that might surprise us about his speech is if we found someone who actually changed their opinion of the war after the President's address.
We won't hold our breath we'll find anyone like that.
Frankly, there wasn't anything that surprised us about the speech.
It's not that we're jaded. We know the stereotype of people who work in media and communications - and while that cliché may have some basis in reality, it didn't color our opinion of the President's address - or the reactions of our colleagues in the media that we observed last night.
First, to the speech.
Several media organizations had already leaked earlier this week that President Obama would be calling for 10,000 troops to come home by the end of this year. Others leaked that Obama would call at least 30,000 troops back in the next fifteen months. Neither piece of news shocked us when the President confirmed them both.
We weren't even surprised that the President made his announcement this month. Eighteen months ago, at West Point, the President told the country then that he was sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in order to actually try and complete the mission initially assigned to those troops a decade ago. The initial mission was to subdue the Taliban, help bring back a secular government, and kill Osama Bin Laden. Eighteen months later, all three goals have been accomplished - and true to his word, President Obama is now beginning to bring the troops home.
Certainly, there were other factors in the President's decision, the cost of the wars being one of the largest. Overall though, this President has - more often than not - completed the goals he's set for himself, and worked to fulfill his promises. One look at Politifact's "Obmaeter" confirms that he's only broken his promises on 42 of 508 promises made before he took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Sadly, we remain unsurprised at how the partisans on both ends of the simplified political spectrum attacked the President after his speech.
On the left, the anti-war liberals immediately jumped on the President as not moving fast enough, and harped on the fact there will still be more troops in Afghanistan than there were when he was inaugurated. Of course, they'll conveniently ignore the fact that his predecessor never even sent the recommended number of troops to either Afghanistan or Iraq in the first place.
On the right, the members of the 101st Kowardly Keyboard Kommandos' Chickenhawk Division immediately jumped to the idea that ANY significant troop reduction is a choice between a safe America and an unsafe America. As we've noted before, we'll never know if they'd feel the same way if they'd been the ones serving four or five tours of duty in war zones over the last decade, instead of living off the largess of their parents and others.
We're not even surprised at the general lack of reaction from Afghans and Pakistanis. Regardless of when we leave, the Afghans will likely revert back to their age-old habits of tribal squabbles and corruption. And Pakistanis still aren't sure killing Bin Laden was a good idea.
Everyone knows where they stand on this issue - and it's no different than it was before the President's address last night. The only thing that might surprise us about his speech is if we found someone who actually changed their opinion of the war after the President's address.
We won't hold our breath we'll find anyone like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)